Vedanta is a form of Hindu theology based on the combined interpretations of three sacred sources:

1. Upanishads
2. Bhagavad-gita
3. Vedanta-sutra

In spite of what common opinion says, there is no such a thing as “thee” Vedanta theology. Instead there are widely divergent interpretations of Vedanta, all of which may be called Vedanta theologies. There are, however, three distinct classical interpretations of Vedanta based on the writings of:

Of these three, Shankara is the most well known and so his particular interpretation of Vedanta is commonly understood to be “thee” Vedanta. This is not true and the other two theologians, although not as well known, are no less important in the history of Hindu theology and therefore should be appreciated. I would also add that these three great teachers should be placed on par with Aristotle, Socrates and Plato.

Each of these classical interpretations of Vedanta theology has been named according to their type of interpretation. Respectively they are:

You will notice that the names of these theologies all center around the word ‘dvaita’ which means ‘duality.’ Therefore, starting from the most recent theologian, Madhva Acharya, his interpretation of Vedanta is called Dvaita. He is often depicted with two finger held up suggesting duality. According to this interpretation he asserts that the nature of reality is dual, meaning that this universe is comprised of two distinct principles, namely, God and everything else. By contrast, Shankara Acharya, the most ancient theologian of the three, has an interpretation called Advaita, non-duality, which asserts that nature of reality is not dual, but one. Shankara’s depiction often shows him holding only one finger up. According to Shankara there is only one ultimate ‘thing’ in existence, namely God. Shankara’s interpretation creates an obvious problem–that if everything is ultimately God, then why do we not know this? One may naturally think, “I certainly do not feel like I am God, nor does the table in front of me seem to be God and my dog is certainly not God!” Shankara’s answer to this question is simple. Everything is God, but the reason you do not perceive this fact is because your ‘seeing’ ability is obscured by illusion (maya) due to ignorance. Remove this illusion through knowledge and you will perceive that all things are God, hence Advaita. Shankara and Madhva have diametrically opposed interpretations of Vedanta.

Ramanuja’s interpretation lies between these two interpretations. According to Ramanuja the nature of reality is ultimately non-duality (advaita), but with a qualification (vishishtha). Thus his interpretation of Vedanta is called Vishishtha Advaita (qualified non-duality). The nature of the qualification is significant. Ramanuja asserts that three distinct ‘things’ exist in this world, namely, God, soul and matter and yet one does not exist without the other. As a unity they are one (advaita) and yet because they are distinct in their essence, this unity is qualified (vishishtha). In a certain way we might say that Ramanuja’s interpretation of Vedanta is something like saying that reality is both dual and non-dual at the same time. Indeed, Ramanuja’s theology has created many derivative interpretations by later theologians who have tried to capture his idea in their own words. For example there is dvaita-advaita (dual and non-dual), shudha-advaita (purified non-duality) and even achintya-bheda-abheda (inconceivable difference and non-difference.

The followers of Shankara’s school commonly assert that these are not different interpretations of the Upanishads, the Gita and Vedanta Sutras, but simply different levels of the same Vedanta theology, the highest being the advaita interpretation. Ramanuja and Madhva, of course, would reject this understanding and say that Shankara’s interpretation is outright wrong. The topic of Vedanta is a vast subject matter that I have barely touched upon, but if the reader wishes to pursue the matter this short explanation will serve as a basis for further study.

The idea of a guru is a misunderstood concept within Hinduism. Literally, the word guru means “heavy”. Thus a guru is a person heavy in knowledge, a teacher. In this sense a school-teacher is a guru, a coach or athletic instructor is a guru, a fine-arts or even a dance teacher is a guru. One’s parents are also gurus. In the religious field, where the word is most commonly used, a guru is a Hindu religious teacher. So a priest or any person learned in Hindu lore may be a guru. The main purpose of the guru is to teach. In the popular mind, however, there are many stereotyped images of what a guru looks like or how that person acts. Usually long hair, beards, flowing robes and lots of bowing followers come to mind, but if we just keep the idea of a teacher forefront we will not be confused.

Sometimes we hear of different kinds of religious gurus. There is an initiating guru (diksha guru), an instructing guru (shiksha guru), and even the “guru within” (chaitya guru). An initiating guru is a person who formally accepts a student into a religious order or sampradaya. This kind of guru gives a mantra and other articles of initiation in a ceremony called diksha. The instructing guru is the teacher who actually trains the student. Sometimes the instructing guru and the initiating guru are the same person. The guru within is said to be the “wee” voice of God within the heart that tells a person how to act, and so on. Conscience might be the best word to describe this type of guru. In fact, it is considered that God is the original guru and all other forms of guru represent this one original guru. The expression “eternal guru” (sat guru) is often used to indicate God as the original guru.

Within Hinduism a guru is given great respect, even to the point of offering worship (guru puja). One full-moon each year (during July/August) is even called the Guru Purnima and is dedicated to the worship of guru. To have a guru who acts as the master is an essential part of spiritual growth and so to feel respect for and to want to honor one’s guru is natural and healthy. However, there is a tendency within Hinduism for the development of guru “cults” where the worship of guru supersedes the worship of God. This generally takes place when the original idea of guru as teacher becomes diminished and is replaced by the idea of guru as “blesser.” To be blessed by a guru is considered the greatest thing, but people forget that the real blessing of a guru comes in the form of study, discipline, and hard work that leads to knowledge and wisdom and not just with the touch of a hand. The idea of guru as blesser is a debasement of the true role of a guru.

As surprising as it may seem, Hinduism has no one word “God” as English does. Instead, it has many words that each describe a certain understanding of God. This is something like in many Eskimo (Inuit) languages there is no one word for snow, instead there are many words, each describing snow in its various varieties, as wet, dry, iced, melting, slushy, and so many other forms that people who do not live with snow cannot imagine. In a similar way, Hinduism is rich in theology and so there are many words for God. Yet, if we needed to suggest a fast equivalent probably the word Bhagavan might be the easiest equivalent to God in English.

There is a famous verse from the Bhagavat Purana, (1.2.11) a popular devotional text, that gives a good understanding of how “God” is generally understood in Hindu terms. The text begins by saying that God is beyond human understanding, No words or human conceptions can even begin to touch God, none the less, humans have three basic and limited ways in which they try to conceive of God. These three ways are as brahman, as paramatma and as bhagavan. Brahman is God as raw energy, as force. It is an impersonal understanding of Divinity. Paramatma is God as indwelling spirit, a kind of generic presence that exits within all things. Bhagavan is God in personal terms, as Krishna, Rama, Shiva, Lakshmi, Durga and the myriad of other Gods and Goddess. In this way, as impersonal force, as indwelling spirit and as transcendent personality, human beings conceive of the Divine. According to the Bhagavat Purana such understandings are universal categories of divine “seeing” and we suggest that they are expressed in one form or another within all religions.

Here are a few basic “God terms” that are commonly used within Hinduism:

Indeed Sanskrit has many many such words to describe God. These are at least some of the more common ones that most people may hear.

Divinity as one Desires

There is one more concept of Divinity that is worthy of note. This is the concept of ishta devata, or one’s personal way of perceiving Divinity. Ishta means ” desired” and devata means “divinity,” and so ishta devata can be roughly translated as, “Divinity as one desires.” If you recall the term adhikara, which meant that each person is at a unique place in spiritual evolution and therefore has “rights” to a certain level of spiritual awareness, in a similar way, God, being limitless, can be approached in an infinite number of ways according to the adhikara of the individual. Each individual has the right, therefore, to conceive of and worship God according to his or her unique position and pychology. How this plays-out in practice is most interesting. Some people, for example, will want to worship God in a very personal and direct way and so they will focus on the worship of a specific personal form of God; perhaps as Rama or Krishna. Even within this personal approach of worsphip some people will want to worship only Krishna in one of His childhood forms, as baby Krishna (Gopala) or as the young Butter Thief (Makhan Chora). There is a huge number of devotional texts devoted to Krishna as the Butter Thief. Others may prefer to see their personal God as Shiva, Ganesha or in female form as Devi. Others, however, may consider the worship of a personal God to be limiting and prefer to approach Divinity in more abstract terms, as brahman or paramatma, for example. Consequently, there is room for huge differences between individuals according to the principle of ishta devata, and from a Hindu perspective of Divinity, there is no conflict.

There is a chilling reflection on the nature of life in the Bhagavata Purana: “Those who are devoid of hands are prey for those with hands; those devoid of legs are prey for those with legs. The weak are the life of the strong, for the rule holds: one living being is food for another.” Against this back drop of harsh reality, there is the principle of ahimsa, which Hinduism upholds as one of its highest ideals. The word ahimsa is derived from the Sanskrit root hims, meaning to strike. Himsa is injury or harm. A-himsa is the opposite of this, non harming or nonviolence.

Ahimsa manifests in various ways. Mahatma Gandhi used ahimsa as a powerful weapon against the British to drive them out of India and to achieve independence. Even Martin Luther King junior, after a trip to India, adopted nonviolence as the hallmark of his civil rights movement in America. Ahimsa is the basis for the vegetarianism within Hinduism and many Hindus even though they may not be vegetarian will not enter a temple or perform puja wearing leather. The principle of ahimsa can directly by derived from the concept of the modes of matter (three gunas) It arises from the mode of goodness, (sattva guna). Ahimsa is also tied into the principle to karma. Treat the universe in a less harmful way and the universe will treat you accordingly. Many followers of ahimsa apply the principle of non harming well beyond just being vegetarian or not wearing leather, but also to not even thinking or speaking in a harmful manner. The Jain religion, which is a sister tradition to Hinduism, in particular, has made ahimsa the very cornerstone of its faith. Mahavira is the founder of Jainism and one of the greatest teachers of ahimsa.

It is interesting to note that in the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna evokes the principle of ahimsa to avoid fighting a terrible war that he knew would destroy the world as he knew it, and yet, Krishna, as God, wanted Arjuna to rise above ahmisa and extolled him to adopt an even higher principle, yoga, and fight the war as a yogi. In the end Arjuna accepted Krishna’s position and fought a devastating war where, according to the Mahabharata, millions of people were killed. Mahatma Gandhi, on the other hand, regularly studied the Gita and held it in highest esteem. The relationship between ahimsa and the Bhagavad Gita is a fascinating study in contradiction and has been a great problem for Hinduism from the earliest of times.